Back
High Court Of Delhi
GIRDHARI LAL GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
K.GIAN CHAND JAIN AND CO - Respondent
First Appeal (OS) 33 of 1974
Decided On : 12/22/1977
DESIGNS ACT, 1911 - SECTION 51-A - JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT - SUBJECT MATTER - NEXUS - LOCUS STANDI - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed petitions under section 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911, alleging that the appellant's registered designs were published in India prior to the date of registration and that their trade was hampered by the wrongful protection afforded to the appellant by the registration. The appellant resisted the petitions and made applications to amend the written statements to take the plea that the High Court of Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and that the jurisdiction for granting such relief was only in the High Court at Calcutta. The learned single Judge refused to allow the amendment of written statements and held that any High Court including the Delhi High Court could entertain the application under section 51-A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench held that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the applications under section 51-A of the Act. The Court held that the definition of "high Court" in section 2 (7) of the Act was not restricted to any one particular High Court and that the legislature did not intend to confine jurisdiction for the revocation of patents and cancellation of registration of designs to the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the Patent Office. The Court further held that the subject matter of an application under section 51-A consisted of the registration of the design and the effects of the registration-static and dynamic. The Court also held that a person interested may fall into either of two categories: (i) a person aggrieved by a legal injury to his own interest in property, business, reputation, etc., and (ii) a person who has some interest over and above the interest of a mere member of the public in vindicating a legal injury to the public interest. The Court further held that the registration of the design and its continuance in the Register of Designs was only a part of the subject matter and that the effect of the registration of the design under the Act was to confer a copyright in the design on the appellant, which prevented the respondents from using the same design so long as the registration subsisted in favour of the appellant. The Court also held that the situs of the damage under section 53 could be the place where the damage was actually caused and that there was no reason why the situs of the damage under section 51-A should not be a relevant consideration to determine jurisdiction under section 51-A.
Issues: Whether the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the applications under section 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the applications under section 51-A of the Act. The Court held that the definition of "high Court" in section 2 (7) of the Act was not restricted to any one particular High Court and that the legislature did not intend to confine jurisdiction for the revocation of patents and cancellation of registration of designs to the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the Patent Office. The Court further held that the subject matter of an application under section 51-A consisted of the registration of the design and the effects of the registration-static and dynamic. The Court also held that a person interested may fall into either of two categories: (i) a person aggrieved by a legal injury to his own interest in property, business, reputation, etc., and (ii) a person who has some interest over and above the interest of a mere member of the public in vindicating a legal injury to the public interest. The Court further held that the registration of the design and its continuance in the Register of Designs was only a part of the subject matter and that the effect of the registration of the design under the Act was to confer a copyright in the design on the appellant, which prevented the respondents from using the same design so long as the registration subsisted in favour of the appellant. The Court also held that the situs of the damage under section 53 could be the place where the damage was actually caused and that there was no reason why the situs of the damage under section 51-A should not be a relevant consideration to determine jurisdiction under section 51-A.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge. The Court directed that the applications made by the respondents should now proceed before the learned single Judge on the basis of the order passed by the Court.
( 1 ) (FOR self and on behalf of S S. Chadha J. ).-These two appeals against the order of a learned single Judge holding that the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain the applications made by the respondents under s. 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911 (as amended) (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act), have been REFERRED TO to the Full Bench for a fuller consideration, of this important question of jurisdiction than it received in the order of the learned single Judge under appeal or in the judicial decisions relied upon and followed by the learned single Judge.
( 2 ) THE respondents in these two appeals each filed a petition under section 51-A of the Act on the following averments supplemented by oral arguments :-
A. Both the respondents and the appellant are carrying on the same trade at Delhi.
B. The appellant has got two designs 131357 and 131364 registered in the Register of Designs maintained under section 46 of the Act.
C. These designs had, however, been published in India in respect of laces prior to the date of registration, secured by appellant.
D. The trade of the respondents in Delhi is hampered by the trade of the appellant in the,same goods, viz. laces. because of the wrongful protection afforded to the appellant by the registration
E. The respondents, therefore, prayed that the registeration of these two designs in favour of the appellant be cancelled by the High Court.
( 3 ) THE applications were resisted by the appellant and the cases were fixed for recording of evidence. At that stage, the appellant made applications under Order VI Rule 17, Civil Procedure- Code. for amending the appellant s written statement in both the cases with a view to take the plea that the High Court of Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications of the respondents for the cancellation of the appellant s registration under section 51-A of the Act and that the jurisdiction for granting such a relief is only in the High Court at Calcutta. The pleas sought to be raised were that the relief of cancellation of registration has to be directed against the Register of Designs maintained at the Patent Office situated at Calcutta. The certificate of registration had been granted by the Controller, who is also located at Calcutta. The Calcutta High Court has, therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application. for cancellation of registration of the design under section 51-A of the Act.
( 4 ) THE learned single Judge refused to allow the amendment of written statements prayed for by the appellant on the ground that the amendment would be useless and had no merit. The learned single Judge was of the view that an, application under section 51-A for cancellation of the registration of a design can be filed in any High Court in India for the following reasons :-
(A) "high Court" is defined in section. 2 (7) of the Act to mean (a) in relation to a state, the High Court for that state, (b) in relation to the Union Territories, the respective High Courts which have been given jurisdiction over the Union Territories.
(B) Under the repealed section 26 of the original Patents and. Designs Act, 1911, a petition for revocation of a patent could be made before "a High Court", meaning any High Court as defined in section 2 (7 ). Though section 51-A of the Act (which now takes the place of repealed s. 26 in regard to Designs) uses the words "the High Court", the legislature did n,ot intend to make a distinction to the effect that while revocation of. the patent under the repealed section 26 could be made by any High Court, the cancellation of the design under section 51-A could be made only by the High Court of Calcutta.
(C) Under the repealed section 34 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911, a High Court could dismiss a petition presetted to it under the repealed section 26, if in its opinion the petition could be disposed of more justly and conveniently by another High Court.
(D) Similarly, under the repe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
